Extra fuel burnt in air fee dodge
Well that's the headline given by the "writer". Suppose it looks better than "Extra fuel burnt to save costs".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7124021.stm Myself can't see a problem in reducing costs, even if it does means slightly more fuel used. What does puzzle me though, on the figures quoted, is how you can use an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel but manage to produce an extra three tonnes of carbon dioxide. But then it was one of my better subject's at school. That was so long ago, before the days of "Global Warming" and outspoken tree huggers. |
What does puzzle me though, on the figures quoted, is how you can use an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel but manage to produce an extra three tonnes of carbon dioxide. So, if you perfectly burned, say, ethanol, C2H6. you'd get IIRC CO2 *2 plus H2O *2. So for 12*2+1*6=24 units (kg, say) of ethanol, you'd get 12+16*2=44 units (kg) of CO2 plus 2*2*1+16=20 units (kg) of water vapour. Kerosene isn't ethanol, but the same logic holds. CO2 "mass" includes oxygen that was extracted from the air, not included in the original fuel mass. |
If you are doing extra flying hours for any reason (such as minimising nav fees) the extra fuel costs are only a proportion of the total additional costs. There will be extra crew costs (directly proportional to flying hours), maintenance, and other related expenses. Across the fleet you may need to drop one or two rotations, with their associated revenue, in the same way as if your destination is just that bit further away.
The linked article of course patently fails to understand any part of this. |
Folks it's quite simple really.
Pax know more about aviation than we professionals do, at least they like to think so. Journalists know more than anyone in the world and anything they say must be true, after all the BBC, Daily Mail, Daily (S)Express, The Times, Guardian etc, don't have any political or other agenda now do they. I remember an interview with the great Dr David Bellamy, the real one not Lenny Henry off TISWAS, regarding Global Warming. His position is that it is all a bunch of trollop, however he has been effectively gagged by our objective media and other scientists, so sorry if I don't buy into this. Now where's my V8 |
The sector BHM – TFS has a great circle (i.e. the most direct) distance of 1849 statute miles. Our renowned tree hugging heroes at the BBC have cited that going down a Tango route adds an extra 100 miles therein making the sector be 1949 statute miles. That represents a 5.4% increase in the overall total distance (with the percentages for flights from Manchester and Newcastle being 5.3% and 4.9% respectively).
So, using the same analogy wrt driving my car… My nearest petrol station is 4 miles away. Adding on an extra 5.4% to that journey would make it 4.22 miles, i.e. just under an extra 400 hundred yards. Uhm, so would I drive an extra 400 hundred yards to fill up my car if the petrol was 1p / liter cheaper at the further station?... You betcha! :D Therein how about a headline of: “Shock horror! Drivers of vehicles found to be driving extra distance in dodge to fill up with cheaper fuel!!!” Wrt Ms 'Mari Martiskainen, a climate expert at the University of Sussex'. That’s most likely your Ex as in ‘a has been’ (though in this case probably a ‘never was’) and spurt as in 'can’t handle pressure' at University of Sussex... .. read 'academia' at it worst... an establishment famed for having nothing good ever come out of it... and I should know as I used to go there myself! :} Wrt 150 car journeys between London & Brighton (wherein I assume they mean single sector journeys not a route pair?). London to Brighton = 58 miles x 150 journeys = 8700 miles. 1.6 Tonnes of JetA1 with a specific gravity of 1.25 = 2000 litre of fuel. Which means their vehicle is getting 19.8 mpg.. .which is piss poor imho.. therein it must be a RangeRover or some’at?!... and I’ll guarantee it won’t get that mpg with all the seats full at 500mph! := ... and don’t even mention ‘Tankering’! :E Nb. Edited due typo. |
What a sad man to write this article. Maybe a better one for him to write:
Extra fuel burnt by political inability to get aviation sorted Main points:
|
I vaguely remember a thread by a journo asking about Tango Routes recently. IIRC he got knobbed off at the high port.
Can't think why. I love the analogy of driving to a distant petrol station for cheaper fuel. Spot on! I guess it is a bit like the carbon footprint created by producing material at the BBC - how many people switch on the telly and then mentally switch off when this kind of drivel crops up? Not to mention all those big generators running H24 at outside broadcast events and the cost of producing candles that this guy uses in his static caravan (that he walks to) for his annual holiday. Oh, and all those TV programmes such as "Wish You were here " that are clearly filmed in a shed in Shephards Bush and not on Caibbean beaches.:E |
I vaguely remember a thread by a journo asking about Tango Routes recently. IIRC he got knobbed off at the high port. Can't think why. I remember his question re the Tango routes and at the time I felt a bit soryy for him after some of the responses, although I didn't post a reply (because we fly short haul and therefore not Tango routes). I now appreciate why the negative responses to his request for information were given........... what a biased, inaccurate article. |
Hold on one sec, they are saving £610 of navigation charges, but burn an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel.
That is £381 per ton of fuel to make a saving. Assuimg 1 litre of jet fuel weighs 820g. Approximately 1220 litres for £381, equates to 31p per litre of jet fuel to make this rerouting cost effective? Surely that is pretty cheap considering the extra maintenance costs factored in from longer flights? |
what a load of utter tosh. I seem to recall that the bottom feeder concerned was trawling on here for dirt a few weeks ago and got fairly short shrift. yet another example of the BBC's absolutely appalling bias in reporting 'climate change' stories.
If the BBC really want to make this a story, then surely the 'villain' of the piece is the european airspace system or the spanish overflight charges. But oh no, they have already cast the airlines as the environmental criminals and every story must support the party line. welcome to '1984' england everyone, just replace thought-crime or sex-crime with carbon-crime |
The thread is in jetblast,
the BBC reporter who originally approached a pilot for information re Tango routes posted this on the thread... As the journalist who made this enquiry to Monarch Man, I find it odd that a polite and confidential request made in the public interest has been posted here as an example of sloppy journalism. I also find the reply **@@er off" a very strange response from another professional. I think most people will find my enquiries perfectly acceptable. If you have any information about the use of Tango Routes by your airline, which ARE currently being used to cut costs, at a significant price to the environment then please feel free to contact me in confidence. I work for the BBC, not the Daily Mail - there is a difference. Thank you J |
What a surprise that this is the kind of crap dished up by this person from the BBC :yuk:
I know I'm shocked :hmm: |
The BBC cite the Nav charges as £1578 on the direct route and £968 on the Tango route - an apparent saving of £610.
However the Tango route is 100 miles longer and to fly it requires extra fuel (seemingly 1.6T). I've just phoned my airlines accounts department and they tell me that the fuel price at LGW (nb. I'm using an averaged / mean price for Nov / Dec) is approx £443 per tonne... wherein I'll assume that the price is going to be similar at BHM, MAN & NCL. So the extra fuel required to fly the Tango route would cost approx: 1.6 x £443 = £709. Uhm?! Thus, far from what is suggested by the BBC and their University 'expert', flying the Tango route costs more, not less!!!... and this does not include the additional maintenance costs associated with operating the a/c for an extra 20 minutes. Imho, the problem with this BBC's article is very much as blablablafly suggests previously, wherein it is a blatant example of lazy journalism with an associated tree-hugging agenda. Nb. Edited due typo's. |
The journalist might be better advised to ask:
1. Why are fuel saving routes denied or unavailable because of the multiplicity of reserved military areas throughout UK airspace? 2. Are the high navigation charges [in various States] a result of a monopoly ATC service provider? 3. Why does the MOD operate a range of noisy dirty gas-guzzlers which do not come close to compliance with civil regulations.....when did airlines last fly the Comet[Nimrod], VC-10 or early model Tri-Star? Just because the airframe has a military serial number....does that make it OK! 4. Should the "full stack" policy [whereby there is significant continuous planned holding over London] be outlawed? |
The comment by the monarch spokesperson at the bottom of the BBC article is refreshing in these days where it seems impossible to get a straight answer:
By travelling via these Oceanic routes, the company avoids paying French and/or Spanish overflight charges and instead pays a much smaller Oceanic airspace overflight charge to the UK and Ireland..............Ultimately the environmental impact comes down to whether the travelling public is prepared to pay. sr |
Here is the thread which alerted PPRuNers to the journo (j1972) sniffing around.
|
Might we be better occupied in trying to address the early descents we all have to endure on entering the UK airspace? I leave you to do the maths, or guess at the figures, but it seems all of us are burning several hundred kilos of fuel to accommodate ATC and their restrictions. I have flown over London LATCC in every conceivable direction to destinations throughout the UK and I have been brought down anything up to 100 miles early to 'avoid conflicting traffic'. Surely if we are all doing this then we are all in each other's way!
Anyone know the definitive reason this must occur? |
Wrt the BBC's 'climate expert', is it me or does this look like the bio of a bonefide tree-hugger personified?
Ms Mari Martiskainen <-- click the link. :E Post: Research Officer Location: Freeman Centre - University of Sussex Email: [email protected] Telephone numbers Internal: 3630 or 8166 UK: (01273) 873630 or (01273) 678166 International: +44 1273 873630 or +44 1273 678166 Biography Mari has a BA in Social Sciences from Helsinki University, Finland, and an MSc in Environmental Technology from Imperial College London. Prior to joining the Sussex Energy Group Mari worked for the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), concentrating on small-scale wind energy systems, microgeneration and communications. Mari's previous experience also includes research and reporting on the global marine fuels sector. Role Mari joined the Sussex Energy Group in SPRU in July 2006, and her current projects include work on consumer behaviour and energy demand. Research Consumer behaviour and energy demand, energy efficiency, renewable energy and microgeneration, the role of nuclear power, and decision making process in energy policy. Also have a look at: http://www.green-alliance.org.uk (do a search for Mari Martiskainen) Nb. Edited to add the link about her being a member of the 'Green Alliance'. :rolleyes: |
Surely if we are all doing this then we are all in each other's way! |
... and they have the temerity to point the finger at aviation whilst 'blowing' £46k a DAY on taxis!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle339824.ece |
It is a shame the thread has degenerated into a childish exercise of semi literates.
OKC when a source is cited it is spelt thus, not sited. I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes. |
Rubik101
1985 has summed it up nicely, but try looking at it another way instead of from departure point to destination. What I mean is this: get yourself a chart of the London TMA - look at the amount of airports within a small area. Now look at the multitude of crossing tracks - both inbound and outbound routes as well as overflights. You need to be at stack level or very near it by the time you reach the holding point - lets face it, if flying into LL,KK,SS you are quite likely to receive a hold of some description. If flying into other airfields in the LTMA (for example GW,LC,HI) you are increasingly likely to have to hold for a short while - and that likelihood is going to increase over the next few years until it becomes a certainty. If you look at the volume of traffic versus the area of airspace, it is physically impossible to give you the ideal continuous descent profile from your cruise level. If you work backwards as I suggest, you will see the problem. The definitive (or near as damn it) reason that the 'early' descents occur is customer driven. The airlines (ATC's customer) collectively choose to fly to/from similar destinations (i.e. similar routes) at the same time - (just pop into a centre to see what I mean - you get Compton rushes Wobun rushes etc). The airlines do this because they are fulfilling the requirements of their customers. You can only fit so many aircraft in a piece of airspace - ANSPs try to provide the most efficient use of a particular piece of airspace whilst maintaining 100% safety - so to quote you and put the ball back in your court I leave you to do the maths, or guess at the figures I totally agree with you - it is not the most efficient use, but these things must be a compromise of several factors (apart from safety) - there can be no other way. |
chrisbl. Good point; well put. It has also become a soap box opportunity for those with a congenital hatred of the Military.
|
chrisbl
yes thank you for your contribution too: I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes. a good point well made |
chrisbl thank you for pointing out that I'd used the word 'site' versus 'cite' (now corrected... such that you might rest you anxious brow). That said, some might say that it's a shame that you didn't elaborate on the subject matter of this thread; aside from using it as a medium to bash an innocent grammatical error.
Therein, in case it's escaped you, the facts of the matter are that the BBC (a supposed public broadcaster with a duty of care for accuracy and truth) have concocted a story, citing 'facts' which, upon inspection, simply do not add up. That flying via a Tango route adds 100 extra miles and uses more fuel is not in doubt. But for the BBC to say: "Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges" The BBC quote some anonymous former Ops Dir as saying: "taking ocean routes when there was no clear wind advantage to do so" Therein please do not loose sight of the fact that the BBC are broadcasting a report, in the public domain, which a good many folks - whom are not associated with the facts - will think is the truth. It's to be noted that all the airline sources the BBC have quoted remain anonymous (oh what a surprise). But that the BBC have chosen to use a 'climate expert' (so called) whom has clear & publicly viewable links to a quasi-political 'green' lobbying group is no surprise! :rolleyes: I'm at loss as to how you might think that objecting to this tosh, i.e. by pointing out the very obvious iniquities of it, has "degenerated into a childish exercise" [sic] ?! I've just seen a TV advert saying that they're going to broadcast this tosh on the TV as part of the 'South East Today' evening news (that's an audience of how many millions?) :ugh: |
I think the refuters of the BBC story are missing something very major here.
Jb 5000 and OKC have used their mathematical ability to demonstrate that the airlines can’t be saving money through this practice, especially if extra maintenance costs, and crew pay, are fully factored in. That leaves two alternatives. Option 1) the BBC made this up completely and in fact no Tango routes are ever flown. Option 2). Airlines are doing Tango routes even though they are not saving them money. Option 1 is ridiculous, even to the most cynical journo-hater, and Thomas Cook admitted they did it. Option 2 is not as improbable as it sounds because the internal accounting rules used by the airline may not accurately reflect all the costs. Companies can instruct accountants to calculate costs in certain ways. If most of the staff, maintenance, and depreciation costs are carried in a different column from operational costs, then a Tango routing flight might be saving an airline money, as it looks from one bean-counter’s cubicle, even though it may not when you broaden the outlook and examine the cost to the company as a whole. Companies often set up “Chinese walls of costs” to make calculations easier within departments. If our maths chaps are right and the airlines are not really saving money, it would not be the first time internal accounting procedures designed to bring about more efficiency have ended up costing more in the end. |
Shall we try to raise this debate a little higher?
Most airlines use computer flight planning that calculates the cost of all routes between departure and destination and produces the cheapest, taking into account forecast winds, operating costs and overflight charges. Some days the winds favour one route, some days another. If the prime route encounters significant delays the airline will use the less optimum route to avoid delays and pictures on the 6 o'clock news of stranded passengers. What I find rather strange is the BBC use of helicopters. I remember about a year ago they had the whole BBC news team up in Scotland with a wild and speculative piece about bird-flu and a couple of swans. We were all treated to the spectacle of the news presenter doing the news live from a helicopter. Needless to say the swans didn't have bird-flu and the story died. Now is there a lesson in carbon footprints in that wild "goose" chase? |
OK Boys and Girls,
If you want to look at carbon footprints look to the world of Islam and the Haj. 250,000 Indonesians will be transported up to Saudi this year to perform Haj. Each of the aeroplanes that are used will go back empty, no freight, no revenue, no passengers. That is 50 - 80 tonnes of fuel each empty sector. This is then repeated after Haj to repatriate 250,000 Indonesians. This is only one part of the Haj. Don't worry abot tango routes, worry about what is happening in Saudi :sad: |
And whilst we are in the area javelin maybe we should consider the current fluffy bunny summit taking place in Bali. How much avgas has been consumed a) getting the bunnies to and from Bali and b) positioning the empty aircraft to other Indonesian airports due to lack of parking spaces at Bali? :hmm:
|
I've just watched the item on the BBC website.
2 things strike me 1 the BBC guy actually flies to Tenerife, er thats carbon saving, and 2 the woman stood on the beach going - "I recycle even the smallest bit of cardboard..." er well if it bothers you that much holiday in Bognor next time. :ugh: If you want to watch it its on BBC Kent |
another nice BBC lie in the story is this basis for comparison:
Andy Farrar, of Air Data, based in Gatwick, calculated the fuel burnt on a tango route flight from Manchester to Tenerife on 16 November and compared it with an imaginary direct flight. and I'm not sure quite what aircraft model he is using because as far as I can work out an extra 100 miles at a speed of about 450 would cost me about 750 kgs of fuel, not 1.6 tonnes. 1.6 tonnes of extra fuel implies a fuel burn of 7.2 tonnes per hour, and yet the figures he uses are using fuel burns of considerably less. To indicate just how much the BBC lie consider the next paragraph from the story. Mr Farrar said: "The flight which flew over the ocean used 14.7 tonnes of fuel and took four hours 17 minutes. "The direct route would have used 13.1 tonnes and have been shorter at three hours 57 minutes." also 100 mile difference would take about 12mins, not 20. What a load of utter lies. This isn't even favourable use of statistics, its lies plain and simple. I'm not sure quite why i'm picking holes in this story however as the BBC have never bothered worring about facts anyway, so quite why I should expect them to be correct now is beyond me. |
Combustion Chemistry
Some interesting numbers appearing early in this thread, but I don't think anybody has it right so far. I have a degree in Chemistry (from a well-known Scottish University) and my estimate is that if you burn a ton of kerosene you get just over 3 tons of CO2. The calc. goes like this (assuming kerosene to be hexane)
C6H14 + 9.5O2 = 6 CO2 + 7H2O In weight terms 86 units of hexane gives 264 units of CO2, hence the 3:1 ratio. Just trying to be helpful.(And snowed in and bored) Jimbo |
Have a look at those wonderful little unit rates below - KK, LL, SS :uhoh: (thats EGSS) operators just love flying that extra hour through EG airspace just to reach T9, 12 or 16............ to get down to GCXX.
Inmagine if T routes became CDR_3++ (read: never open!)...and our French friends went on strike (its been ages since they last done that! mmm, a week ago?); let alone on a normal day, push and hold for 90 minutes etc etc You know this is such a stupid article, incompetent, untrue, false and misleading that I cant even be bothered to write down my arguments even more! Mr Journo (or anyone at the BBC) if you read this then please feel free to ask me why, and at the same time I would like to cancel my TV licence fee (I love SKY! hehe), oh no , hold on I cant do that, bit like those EG nav charges; rip off Britain! EB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7095 ED 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6737 LF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6097 EG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7749 EH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4767 EI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2495 LS 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6896 LP 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4822 LO 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5805 LE 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7664 GC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6775 AZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 1329 LG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4418 LT 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2685 LM 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3485 LI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6766 LC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3513 LH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3029 EN 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6525 EK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5515 LJ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6077 LR 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3955 LK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4647 ES 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4622 LZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4273 LD 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2987 LB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4844 LW 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6688 LU 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4324 EF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3823 LA 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4305 LQ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3929 LY 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4155 |
Maybe if the BBC journo was an expert in Tango routes, ATC routings, etc he might be a pilot instead of a journo.
If OKC was a bit more literate he might be a journo for the BBC instead of an aviator but at least he has the aptitude to be as economical with his facts which is a promising start. Quote: "Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges" is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall. As far as I know, they have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?:ugh: |
Jimbo Canuck:
assuming kerosene to be hexane |
chrisbl - I'd rather be an illiterate truth teller than an literate liar!
Therein please do be so kind as to tell us where it is that I've been economical with my facts?... i.e. what with you being an expert on airline jet ops et al and / or please also do tell us how many thousands of hours you've got flying large transport jets and / or how many years you've been working in the airline business, i.e. I'm just curious to confirm your bona fide's... wherein are you an amateur (e.g. BBC journo) or are you an airline professional ?! You say: "As far as I know, they (the BBC) have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?" By way of example, let's imagine that chrisbl is on his way to the filling station 'A' only to find that station 'A' has very long queues / a lengthy wait. However, looking down the road (5% further away) toward filling station 'B' the queues are a lot less... and therein chrisbl's time (=money!) is of the essence. And furthermore the fuel at filling station 'B' is cheaper! Uhm, so what's chrisbl to do? Following on from this, how would chrisbl like some ne'erdowell at the BBC to write an article which either said and / or very-strongly-inferred that: "chrisbl, intentionally drives past the nearest filling station in order to avail him self of the faster service located at a filling station 5% further down the road... wherein this just goes to show what a total polluting hypocrite that chrisbl really is!" Moving swiftly on... I think what Lauderdale is alluding to, i.e. wrt 'unit ATC rates' is that maybe the UK, France, Spain, Portugal are taking the absolute piss when it comes to ATC charges... or else wise (and with my Devils Advocate hat firmly in place) how come the folks at the bottom of this list can provide the same level(?) of ATC service for substantially less £$€'s ?! Price Area ---------------------- 7749 UK 7664 Spain 7095 Belgium 6896 Lesotho 6775 Canary Isles 6766 Liechtenstein 6737 Germany 6688 Macedonia 6525 Norway 6097 France 6077 Slovenia 5805 Solomon Islands 5515 Uzbekistan 4844 Albania 4822 Portugal 4767 Holland 4647 Faro Islands 4622 Estonia 4418 Greece 4324 Luxembourg 4305 Iceland 4273 Slovakia 4155 Serbia 3955 Romania 3929 Bosnia Herzegovinia 3823 Finland 3513 Cyprus 3485 Malta 3029 Hungary 2987 Crotia 2685 Turkey 2495 Ireland 1329 Kazachstan You gotta love the Irish ! :ok: |
AndyF
The extra fuel required to fly the Tango route is actually 834 Kgs (14949-14115) which, at $850/1000Kgs, works out at about £352.
So, the "saving" in overflight charges against fuel is £610 - £352 = £258 But the flight is (actually) 11 minutes longer, and I have no idea what that costs (in terms of £/hr). One significant point that the programme (the bit I saw) didn't mention is that, as last week, the winds are often favourable to go to the Canaries over the ocean. Any sensible airline would take advantage of that - and probably return by the "direct" route, to avoid headwinds. Apart from that, I didn't think that the programme was all THAT bad. At least they mentioned the fact that oceanic routes avoid the (highly probable) likelihood of ATC problems and delays, and they allowed Monarch the chance to put their point of view. A little more on WHY overflight charges are so high might have been appropriate. :hmm: |
I think "Frangible" hit the nail on the head in post #26.
|
AndyF
The figures given on the programme were not exactly what were calculated (and I could send you copies of the plans, if you wish).
The so-called "imaginary route" was a real enough one (routings were given to me, from "another provider"). The aircraft was a generic 757200, flown at M79 - performance data from Boeing. So, no lies, I'm afraid. Please see my other reply (above) |
From the BBC article in question:
A spokesman said: "By travelling via these Oceanic routes, the company avoids paying French and/or Spanish overflight charges and instead pays a much smaller Oceanic airspace overflight charge to the UK and Ireland. "French/Spanish Promote Extra Carbon Emissions with High Charges" |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.